Who originally came up with the idea of reduced capacity 10 round mags? Why 10 rounds? Who originally thought it was a good idea to outlaw standard capacity double stack mags in favor of these? It's something I've been wondering about and it would be great if someone who has been around a while could shed some light on it.

With common standard mags at 12/15/20/30/etc... I feel the Democraps wanted to still *allow* a 2 digit number, being the smallest they could = the number "10". Less people would *****, moan, & complain.

Look at Cali folk vs the new New York ban. Most people don't blink an eye at 10 round limits, but as soon as that drops to 7, all hell breaks loose

Some states limit you to 20, some 15, some 10, now NY goes with 7. Nothing magical about them, just the closest they could get to 0 at the time.

Some claim that eeeeeevil "rich" starts at 1 M, some 400k, some 250k, some 100k. In Greece it's now 55k.

Some countries have tax rates of 12%, some 20%, some 40%, and some 75%. Nothing magic about those either, but each of the latter is the closest they could get to 100 at the time.

Control freaks want control, in whatever amount you will give it to them. Their definition of "reasonable" will always be just a bit further than what you've already given them, and they'll never give a real number to "fair share", it's just more than whatever it is now.

It came about the same way that 98.389% of all statistics do. Somebody pulled a number out of their ass, and some people fell for it.

__________________When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. - George Santayana

Weren't 10 round mags actually produced before the ban on "high caps?" I remember reading that the NYPD ordered them for their early issued semiautos because they felt high caps would cause their officers to "spray and pray" even more than they were already in the habit of doing.

Bill Ruger said he didn't see a need for 'regular people' to have more than 15 round mags.

This got trimmed to 10.

Bill took a lot of crap for that over the years, and now he's dead.

Yep, the "libs" didn't think up magazine capacity limits. Bill Ruger said 15 was enough. Interestingly, this was when his pistols were loosing sales to the then new to the US 17 round pistol.

California passed a 15 round AWB ban, and New Jersey soon followed. Neither had any kind of grandfathering. The ban was overturned in California because of it. Of course, California followed up with a different ban later on.

The case was also brought against the NJ law, but apparently the US Constitution somehow doesn't apply the same, so NJ was, and still is, stuck with this law.

As for 10, once the seed was planted, it was the anti's way in as a way of incrementalism. Now NY is going to 7 rounds, and there are bills being proposed to limit to 5 rounds (I got a newsletter saying someone is proposing this in NJ, though I don't know the details, or if it has any sponsors).

"...on 30 March 1989 (WBR) had his proposed legislation delivered to 535 members of the House and the Senate. A portion of his document read:

'The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.

Shortly thereafter, the Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) endorsed the 15-round limitation in a position paper issued on 2 May 1989. It read, in part:

'The possession of any "extra capacity" magazine in combination with the possession of a semi-automatic firearm, other than .22 caliber Rimfire, should be regulated. "Extra capacity magazines" are detachable magazines which hold in excess of 10(!) centerfire rifle cartridges or shotgun shells, or detachable pistol magazines which hold in excess of 15 centerfire cartridges.'

'Semi-automatic firearms as such should not be the object of any legislative prohibition. It is actually the large magazine capacity, rather than the semi-automatic operation, which is the proper focus of this debate.'

Bill was trying (in a misguided way) to prevent a ban on any semi-autos by suggesting instead a limit on magazine capacity. The demoncraps in control of congress (along with Clinton and Gore) simply changed it from 15 to 10, then added the mag restriction on to their AW bill and passed it with Gore casting the deciding vote in the Senate.

Although WBR usually gets all the blame, Winchester Ammunition division of Olin, Browning Arms, Federal Cartridge, Hercules, Hornady Manufacturing, Marlin Firearms, O.F. Mossberg, Omark Industries, Remington Arms, Smith & Wesson, Thompson/Center and Weatherby also supported Bill's position at the time… They were all members of SAAMI.

Bill Ruger in 1999 or 2000, in an interview with the NRA, when he donated about a million bucks to them, said in hind-sight, he shouldn't have made the proposal.

"...on 30 March 1989 (WBR) had his proposed legislation delivered to 535 members of the House and the Senate. A portion of his document read:

'The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives.

Shortly thereafter, the Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) endorsed the 15-round limitation in a position paper issued on 2 May 1989. It read, in part:

'The possession of any "extra capacity" magazine in combination with the possession of a semi-automatic firearm, other than .22 caliber Rimfire, should be regulated. "Extra capacity magazines" are detachable magazines which hold in excess of 10(!) centerfire rifle cartridges or shotgun shells, or detachable pistol magazines which hold in excess of 15 centerfire cartridges.'

'Semi-automatic firearms as such should not be the object of any legislative prohibition. It is actually the large magazine capacity, rather than the semi-automatic operation, which is the proper focus of this debate.'

Bill was trying (in a misguided way) to prevent a ban on any semi-autos by suggesting instead a limit on magazine capacity. The demoncraps in control of congress (along with Clinton and Gore) simply changed it from 15 to 10, then added the mag restriction on to their AW bill and passed it with Gore casting the deciding vote in the Senate.

Although WBR usually gets all the blame, Winchester Ammunition division of Olin, Browning Arms, Federal Cartridge, Hercules, Hornady Manufacturing, Marlin Firearms, O.F. Mossberg, Omark Industries, Remington Arms, Smith & Wesson, Thompson/Center and Weatherby also supported Bill's position at the time… They were all members of SAAMI.

Bill Ruger in 1999 or 2000, in an interview with the NRA, when he donated about a million bucks to them, said in hind-sight, he shouldn't have made the proposal.

Whoever came up with it first doesn't matter. Its still an arbritrary number. How do you just draw a line in the sand with something like that? 10 is ok, but 11!!! 11 makes the gun too deadly for us meager subjects to the law! C'mon!

Some states limit you to 20, some 15, some 10, now NY goes with 7. Nothing magical about them, just the closest they could get to 0 at the time.

Some claim that eeeeeevil "rich" starts at 1 M, some 400k, some 250k, some 100k. In Greece it's now 55k.

Some countries have tax rates of 12%, some 20%, some 40%, and some 75%. Nothing magic about those either, but each of the latter is the closest they could get to 100 at the time.

Control freaks want control, in whatever amount you will give it to them. Their definition of "reasonable" will always be just a bit further than what you've already given them, and they'll never give a real number to "fair share", it's just more than whatever it is now.